User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/7/2016 9:47:06 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
I'm surprised this hasn't popped up on the piston board already. This makes two recent .mil piston contracts for HK. I'm always glad to see the piston format gaining some professional acceptance. http://soldiersystems.net/2016/03/31/rumor-has-it-hk-wins-csass/ This election was rigged. LMT FOR PRESIDENT! I too am happy that gas piston (with op rod for any DI trolls in the house) are gaining acceptance. I really can't understand the DI guys and telling everyone to get switchblocks and H5 buffers and RTVing everything shut just to have a versatile suppressed/unsuppressed rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2016 11:13:19 PM EDT
[#2]
I cant wait to shoot my 545x39 adams on my m16. its smooth on me semi lowers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2016 11:52:34 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
I'm surprised this hasn't popped up on the piston board already. This makes two recent .mil piston contracts for HK. I'm always glad to see the piston format gaining some professional acceptance. http://soldiersystems.net/2016/03/31/rumor-has-it-hk-wins-csass/ http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1853866_Hk_G28E_wins_CSASS_contracts__EDIT__It_s_official__HKG28E1_replacing_the_KAC_M110_.html It's worth noting this was a heavily modified G28 done by H&K USA and it actually shares little in common with the standard G28. It is essentially superior in every way to its German brother. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 5:10:19 PM EDT
[#4]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 11:31:28 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryCouldn't the government have simply told them "make it adhere to US specs, or GTFO"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 9:59:25 PM EDT
[#6]
I've known people that shot OSS cans on flat ranges and had them crack down the body of the suppressor. I'm pretty dubious of their durability to spite the advantage of having less gas blowback. I hope they beat the hell out of them in the trials and adopted a better version at least.
I've also heard of the bulky $80 plastic mags developing stress fractures when left loaded for a few months. A friend left a few of them loaded in a range bag for a few months and when he went to the range next there were small cracks in the mag body. He ditched the rifle because of it since it only takes HK mags. It would be nice to have a SR25 mag version. Still it looks good. If the cans suck they can just run the ones already in inventory and if the mags suck I guess Magpul gets another military contract. I have thought for years that issuing out 416 upper conversation kits to most units was a good idea. More reliable and not much different to use or maintain than the normal M4. Probably pretty cost effective as well rather than all this future rifle trial stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2016 12:20:25 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've known people that shot OSS cans on flat ranges and had them crack down the body of the suppressor. I'm pretty dubious of their durability to spite the advantage of having less gas blowback. I hope they beat the hell out of them in the trials and adopted a better version at least. I've also heard of the bulky $80 plastic mags developing stress fractures when left loaded for a few months. A friend left a few of them loaded in a range bag for a few months and when he went to the range next there were small cracks in the mag body. He ditched the rifle because of it since it only takes HK mags. It would be nice to have a SR25 mag version. Still it looks good. If the cans suck they can just run the ones already in inventory and if the mags suck I guess Magpul gets another military contract. I have thought for years that issuing out 416 upper conversation kits to most units was a good idea. More reliable and not much different to use or maintain than the normal M4. Probably pretty cost effective as well rather than all this future rifle trial stuff. The mags supposedly allow for a longer overall cartridge length which is a plus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2016 9:12:57 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The mags supposedly allow for a longer overall cartridge length which is a plus. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I've known people that shot OSS cans on flat ranges and had them crack down the body of the suppressor. I'm pretty dubious of their durability to spite the advantage of having less gas blowback. I hope they beat the hell out of them in the trials and adopted a better version at least. I've also heard of the bulky $80 plastic mags developing stress fractures when left loaded for a few months. A friend left a few of them loaded in a range bag for a few months and when he went to the range next there were small cracks in the mag body. He ditched the rifle because of it since it only takes HK mags. It would be nice to have a SR25 mag version. Still it looks good. If the cans suck they can just run the ones already in inventory and if the mags suck I guess Magpul gets another military contract. I have thought for years that issuing out 416 upper conversation kits to most units was a good idea. More reliable and not much different to use or maintain than the normal M4. Probably pretty cost effective as well rather than all this future rifle trial stuff. The mags supposedly allow for a longer overall cartridge length which is a plus. And a non-issue for .mil because they're not issueing reloads. While I like all my piston rifles, this was a horrible choice. Non standard mags that don't fit in existing web gear? Heavier than the current system? No thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2016 12:16:42 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Heavier than the current system? Why do you think it is heavier? Solicitation required lighter system than SASS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2016 5:25:06 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This election was rigged. LMT FOR PRESIDENT! I too am happy that gas piston (with op rod for any DI trolls in the house) are gaining acceptance. I really can't understand the DI guys and telling everyone to get switchblocks and H5 buffers and RTVing everything shut just to have a versatile suppressed/unsuppressed rifle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm surprised this hasn't popped up on the piston board already. This makes two recent .mil piston contracts for HK. I'm always glad to see the piston format gaining some professional acceptance. http://soldiersystems.net/2016/03/31/rumor-has-it-hk-wins-csass/ This election was rigged. LMT FOR PRESIDENT! I too am happy that gas piston (with op rod for any DI trolls in the house) are gaining acceptance. I really can't understand the DI guys and telling everyone to get switchblocks and H5 buffers and RTVing everything shut just to have a versatile suppressed/unsuppressed rifle. Hold on now, you don't *need* the adjustable blocks. A switch block and a proper mil spec style buffer system go a very long way, but the buffer system alone is where it counts the most. RTVing shit is for user comfort. Inhale those gasses like a man! Ha! I'm definitely not bashing piston systems. Just taking up for the tried and true! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2016 7:47:57 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do you think it is heavier? Solicitation required lighter system than SASS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Heavier than the current system? Why do you think it is heavier? Solicitation required lighter system than SASS. From everything I heard, they were initially kicked out for not meeting the go/no-go, specifically due to weight and then allowed back in with a waiver. So while I don't know the weight of this system, it wouldn't surprise me if there were no appreciable weight savings over the current system. I'm actually shocked their system won. Every end user that I've spoke to that uses the 417 (internationally), has nothing spectacular to say about them and I've also heard of the OSS suppressor issues. Perhaps more shocking is that S&B was in the system - a riflescope that has had bad performance and qc issues anymore, notably within USSOCOM. If they have those issues with USSOCOM, I have no idea how they'll do when tasked with supplying the quantity needed for the US Army (3600 initially and likely up to 40,0000 if expanded to DMR role). I suspect that we'll see several changes being made after first article testing before you'll have a finalized package. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2016 5:43:33 AM EDT
[#12]
Given what this is replacing, this was an excellent choice. Even if it does have some shortfalls.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2016 9:38:18 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Given what this is replacing, this was an excellent choice. Even if it does have some shortfalls. The M110 is a good system but the Army never held their feet to the fire over some of the issues they experienced due to their own restrictive language in the TDP. The suppressor especially sucks but can be changed - the TDP makes that a giant hurdle though. It was easier to look for an M110 "upgrade" by pushing the requirement for a smaller system. The CAG guys use the M110K's and love the performance but they also hold their feet to the fire and KAC knows that it's not terribly hard for the unit to move onto something else if they're dissatisfied. The testing was a little ridiculous as well. I know that some aspects of USASOC had to fight their way into the testing. I know of 1 instance of when they arrived for some of the testing (which was them and non-SOF folks), they saw a bunch of sillouhette targets mounted at a 45 degree angle. When the SOF dudes asked why - they were told it was to zero the offset red-dot. They never taught the guys testing to roll the rifle for proper red-dot presentation, so it started out with some of the SOF guys having to teach the evaluators how to use a back-up red-dot. So what exactly makes this an "excellent choice" for a precision rifle, even with "some shortfalls"? I'm not trying to defend the M110, but the last 2 times a weapon system was picked with a few shortfalls, hoping they'd get the shortfalls fixed after contract award (Army M110 and USSOCOM PSR) it resulted in being stuck with a system that wasn't terribly desirable (M110) and the contract being canceled (PSR). This happens because of the solicitation process. The Gov't can't suggest or demand changes until a contract is awarded so they go with what did the best of what was submitted and hope to make changes after - which also costs money. What I don't get is that a rifle is the sum total of machined parts - either it performs or it don't. It's not a highly technical or complex item. The V22 Osprey had its first flight in something like 1985 and didn't go operational til the 2000 or so timeframe - I get that. Highly complex and evolving technologies take time but either a rifle performs and meets the spec or it don't. This thing of fixing known problems/issues after contract award to ultimately get what they want is bullcrap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2016 9:50:39 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From everything I heard, they were initially kicked out for not meeting the go/no-go, specifically due to weight and then allowed back in with a waiver. So while I don't know the weight of this system, it wouldn't surprise me if there were no appreciable weight savings over the current system. I'm actually shocked their system won. Every end user that I've spoke to that uses the 417 (internationally), has nothing spectacular to say about them and I've also heard of the OSS suppressor issues. Perhaps more shocking is that S&B was in the system - a riflescope that has had bad performance and qc issues anymore, notably within USSOCOM. If they have those issues with USSOCOM, I have no idea how they'll do when tasked with supplying the quantity needed for the US Army (3600 initially and likely up to 40,0000 if expanded to DMR role). I suspect that we'll see several changes being made after first article testing before you'll have a finalized package. Quote HistoryQuoted:
From everything I heard, they were initially kicked out for not meeting the go/no-go, specifically due to weight and then allowed back in with a waiver. So while I don't know the weight of this system, it wouldn't surprise me if there were no appreciable weight savings over the current system. I'm actually shocked their system won. Every end user that I've spoke to that uses the 417 (internationally), has nothing spectacular to say about them and I've also heard of the OSS suppressor issues. Perhaps more shocking is that S&B was in the system - a riflescope that has had bad performance and qc issues anymore, notably within USSOCOM. If they have those issues with USSOCOM, I have no idea how they'll do when tasked with supplying the quantity needed for the US Army (3600 initially and likely up to 40,0000 if expanded to DMR role). I suspect that we'll see several changes being made after first article testing before you'll have a finalized package. All rifles had to meet specific requirements and all on short list (including HK) met this criteria. Rifle weight was one of it (refer to point 5 below) Regarding Hk417, it is not precision rifle, but battle rifle. It is not made to same accuracy standards as G28 (or MR308 that is base for G28) are made. There was specific accuracy requirement and rifle met it (refer to point 2 below) Regarding S&B, this was not HK decision, but Army decision (refer to point 12 below). But yes, I agree with you. I would prefer Vortex Razor HD Gen2 too ;) Just for your convenience: Description:
Sources Sought - Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper System (CSASS). The US Army, Army Contracting Command, New Jersey on behalf of the Project Manager Soldier Weapons (PMSW), located at Picatinny Arsenal, NJ is conducting a market survey to identify potential sources for manufacturing a complete system or reconfiguring some or all of the existing 7.62 x 51mm M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System (SASS) currently available in Army inventory to the specifications identified in this notice. The current M110 is a lightweight, direct gas operated, semi-automatic, box magazine fed, 7.62 x 51mm rifle intended to engage and defeat personnel targets out to 800 meters. This notice is to determine if there are potential sources capable of reconfiguring existing US Army M110 SASS's, or manufacturing new complete systems to meet the following criteria: 1. Operation: Semi-automatic 2. Caliber: Compatible with 7.62x51mm NATO cartridges 3. Accuracy: Capable of 0.60" AMR at 100m or better with match ammunition. 4. Size: Overall length shall be reduced using a shorter barrel and/or collapsible buttstock. Maximum overall assembled length of the rifle shall be not greater than 36 inches with the stock at its shortest position and no sound suppressor mounted. 5. Weight: Weight shall be no more than 9.0 lb for the unloaded rifle without optics and accessories. 6. Grip: A modular, adjustable pistol grip. 7. Trigger: A non-adjustable match style trigger. 8. Hand guard: A fore-end that includes a fixed 12 o' clock rail with configurable 3, 6, and 9 o' clock rails. 9. Sound suppressor: A muzzle mounted, detachable sound suppressor. 10. Muzzle device: A compensator/muzzle break compatible with the sound suppressor. 11. Bipod: Tool-less detachment featuring cant and pan/track capability. 12. Day optic: An Army specified variable power day optic and compatible rings. 13. Back up sights: Iron sights offset 45 deg from the DOS. 14. Sling attachment: Flush cup, quick detach sling attachment points. 15. Barrel and Receiver Life: Significant improvement from M110 requirements while enduring higher rates of fire. In addition to the above listed enhancements, the CSASS must meet the operational and environmental requirements that were fulfilled by the original M110 SASS. Firms/companies are invited to provide information and relative background on their capabilities to provide spare parts and contractor logistical support for depot level maintenance of the entire upgraded weapon system. The production requirement for CSASS is at an estimated range of 125 per month with a capability to ramp up to 325 per month. Please provide comments as the Government seeks to understand industrial capability on production rate and timing as envisioned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2016 4:55:16 PM EDT
[#15]
Montrala, I'm intimately familiar with the requirements. From what I know from others involved (since I did not conduct any testing) the HK and 1 other company were initially kicked out due to not meeting the weight requirements and then both were allowed back in. Regarding the "Army specified optic" - it very much was an HK decision. The Army set forth the specifications of the optic (optic must have no less than 15x for high magnification and no more than 4x magnification for low magnification, etc), but did not specifically state which manufacturer since they cannot unless it is a current program of record.
Again, I'll believe that this is the final package after all of the first article testing has been completed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 10:05:30 AM EDT
[#16]
But looks like they meet weight criteria. Or did Army change criteria? Because if not, then I've seen more than once that companies got kicked our, because criteria were applied in wrong manner and after protest those companies were back in play (I do not mean US market here).
Scope looks to be 3-20x50 PM II Ultra Short if I'm not mistaken. Those scopes have very good opinion so far. Also there is not info on any problems with "classic" 3-20x50 PM II that are issue optic on G28. And it is kind of natural that given free hand in this HK would choose either S&B or Hensoldt. Exactly like I would expect Colt or Remington to offer Leupold or Nightforce. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2016 2:03:24 PM EDT
[#17]
I think what's lost on me is the standard configuration. Like any cartridge you have to have barrel length to get to maximum velocities to maintain effective range; physics is physics. What is the point of going from over 20" of barrel length with the older bolt guns to this obviously neutered barrel length? Cut that down to this length and you might as well be using the 300BO as a sniper round.
Instead, why not use a bullpup configuration? Rifles like the RFB can have a 24" barrel and still about make the length requirement. That way you get full effective range of the round and sacrifice nothing. Sure, everyone is familiar with the general AR design, but people were comfortable with the Garand series before it and adapted. I love my ARs, trust my life to them, but at some point it's time to move the design again, here 50 years later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2016 2:53:16 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think what's lost on me is the standard configuration. Like any cartridge you have to have barrel length to get to maximum velocities to maintain effective range; physics is physics. What is the point of going from over 20" of barrel length with the older bolt guns to this obviously neutered barrel length? Cut that down to this length and you might as well be using the 300BO as a sniper round. Instead, why not use a bullpup configuration? Rifles like the RFB can have a 24" barrel and still about make the length requirement. That way you get full effective range of the round and sacrifice nothing. Sure, everyone is familiar with the general AR design, but people were comfortable with the Garand series before it and adapted. I love my ARs, trust my life to them, but at some point it's time to move the design again, here 50 years later. Get some velocity charts out and get back to use. Then figure out how to shoot a high capacity 7.62 from prone with your hand under the rear of the stock when the magazine is in the way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2016 2:54:05 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This election was rigged. LMT FOR PRESIDENT! I too am happy that gas piston (with op rod for any DI trolls in the house) are gaining acceptance. I really can't understand the DI guys and telling everyone to get switchblocks and H5 buffers and RTVing everything shut just to have a versatile suppressed/unsuppressed rifle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm surprised this hasn't popped up on the piston board already. This makes two recent .mil piston contracts for HK. I'm always glad to see the piston format gaining some professional acceptance. http://soldiersystems.net/2016/03/31/rumor-has-it-hk-wins-csass/ This election was rigged. LMT FOR PRESIDENT! I too am happy that gas piston (with op rod for any DI trolls in the house) are gaining acceptance. I really can't understand the DI guys and telling everyone to get switchblocks and H5 buffers and RTVing everything shut just to have a versatile suppressed/unsuppressed rifle. I really can't understand why the Surefire 212 and the entire line or OSS cans had to be developed to get the HK rifles to function suppressed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2016 5:35:23 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Get some velocity charts out and get back to use. Then figure out how to shoot a high capacity 7.62 from prone with your hand under the rear of the stock when the magazine is in the way. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think what's lost on me is the standard configuration. Like any cartridge you have to have barrel length to get to maximum velocities to maintain effective range; physics is physics. What is the point of going from over 20" of barrel length with the older bolt guns to this obviously neutered barrel length? Cut that down to this length and you might as well be using the 300BO as a sniper round. Instead, why not use a bullpup configuration? Rifles like the RFB can have a 24" barrel and still about make the length requirement. That way you get full effective range of the round and sacrifice nothing. Sure, everyone is familiar with the general AR design, but people were comfortable with the Garand series before it and adapted. I love my ARs, trust my life to them, but at some point it's time to move the design again, here 50 years later. Get some velocity charts out and get back to use. Then figure out how to shoot a high capacity 7.62 from prone with your hand under the rear of the stock when the magazine is in the way. It's not rocket surgery... it's about a 300fps loss of velocity from 24" to 16" in the 7.62 x 51 using 168gr match ammo. I think that is significant. Were they to have stepped up to the 300 Win Mag that would have certainly offset some of the loss, and it's not like there aren't already 300 WinMag AR platforms out there. As for the magazine, you've heard they make shorter ones right? While the SASS has the advantage of quick follow-ups, rarely will it need to be with 20 rounds. A 10 round would be a flush mount and means little to no difference in the height of the stock, where an elevated cheek rest is typically desired anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2016 6:12:53 PM EDT
[#21]
More like 150-200 fps, which is still significant but not as much as you think.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 5:22:26 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The M110 is a good system but the Army never held their feet to the fire over some of the issues they experienced due to their own restrictive language in the TDP. The suppressor especially sucks but can be changed - the TDP makes that a giant hurdle though. It was easier to look for an M110 "upgrade" by pushing the requirement for a smaller system. The CAG guys use the M110K's and love the performance but they also hold their feet to the fire and KAC knows that it's not terribly hard for the unit to move onto something else if they're dissatisfied. The testing was a little ridiculous as well. I know that some aspects of USASOC had to fight their way into the testing. I know of 1 instance of when they arrived for some of the testing (which was them and non-SOF folks), they saw a bunch of sillouhette targets mounted at a 45 degree angle. When the SOF dudes asked why - they were told it was to zero the offset red-dot. They never taught the guys testing to roll the rifle for proper red-dot presentation, so it started out with some of the SOF guys having to teach the evaluators how to use a back-up red-dot. So what exactly makes this an "excellent choice" for a precision rifle, even with "some shortfalls"? I'm not trying to defend the M110, but the last 2 times a weapon system was picked with a few shortfalls, hoping they'd get the shortfalls fixed after contract award (Army M110 and USSOCOM PSR) it resulted in being stuck with a system that wasn't terribly desirable (M110) and the contract being canceled (PSR). This happens because of the solicitation process. The Gov't can't suggest or demand changes until a contract is awarded so they go with what did the best of what was submitted and hope to make changes after - which also costs money. What I don't get is that a rifle is the sum total of machined parts - either it performs or it don't. It's not a highly technical or complex item. The V22 Osprey had its first flight in something like 1985 and didn't go operational til the 2000 or so timeframe - I get that. Highly complex and evolving technologies take time but either a rifle performs and meets the spec or it don't. This thing of fixing known problems/issues after contract award to ultimately get what they want is bullcrap. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Given what this is replacing, this was an excellent choice. Even if it does have some shortfalls. The M110 is a good system but the Army never held their feet to the fire over some of the issues they experienced due to their own restrictive language in the TDP. The suppressor especially sucks but can be changed - the TDP makes that a giant hurdle though. It was easier to look for an M110 "upgrade" by pushing the requirement for a smaller system. The CAG guys use the M110K's and love the performance but they also hold their feet to the fire and KAC knows that it's not terribly hard for the unit to move onto something else if they're dissatisfied. The testing was a little ridiculous as well. I know that some aspects of USASOC had to fight their way into the testing. I know of 1 instance of when they arrived for some of the testing (which was them and non-SOF folks), they saw a bunch of sillouhette targets mounted at a 45 degree angle. When the SOF dudes asked why - they were told it was to zero the offset red-dot. They never taught the guys testing to roll the rifle for proper red-dot presentation, so it started out with some of the SOF guys having to teach the evaluators how to use a back-up red-dot. So what exactly makes this an "excellent choice" for a precision rifle, even with "some shortfalls"? I'm not trying to defend the M110, but the last 2 times a weapon system was picked with a few shortfalls, hoping they'd get the shortfalls fixed after contract award (Army M110 and USSOCOM PSR) it resulted in being stuck with a system that wasn't terribly desirable (M110) and the contract being canceled (PSR). This happens because of the solicitation process. The Gov't can't suggest or demand changes until a contract is awarded so they go with what did the best of what was submitted and hope to make changes after - which also costs money. What I don't get is that a rifle is the sum total of machined parts - either it performs or it don't. It's not a highly technical or complex item. The V22 Osprey had its first flight in something like 1985 and didn't go operational til the 2000 or so timeframe - I get that. Highly complex and evolving technologies take time but either a rifle performs and meets the spec or it don't. This thing of fixing known problems/issues after contract award to ultimately get what they want is bullcrap. So what's the story at the moment with the PSR? Are any actually in use, did they get rejected before being issued, what is the deal with the "Advanced Sniper Rifle" replacement...? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2016 12:15:53 PM EDT
[#23]
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
